ArticleBMJ open2021
Instruments for assessing the preferences for everyday living of older people with various care needs: protocol for an evidence map.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the importance and feasibility of the Preferences for Everyday Living Inventory-Korean (PELI-K): A cross-sectional study using the nursing home stakeholder advisory panel.Journal of Korean gerontological nursing · 2025Article
- Family Care Partners and Paid Caregivers: National Estimates of Role-Sharing in Home Care.The Gerontologist · 2024Article
- Consulting concepts and structures for people with dementia in Germany: a protocol for a 'grey-shaded' scoping review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Article
- "This is Slowly Becoming my Interest…": The Understanding of Leisure and Preferences for Leisure Activities of People Receiving Adult Day Services.Research on agingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConsideration of the preferences for everyday living of older people with various care needs is a prerequisite for person-centred and evidence-based nursing care. Knowledge of and respect for these preferences by nursing staff are associated with better care outcomes for older people with various care needs. To assess preferences in a structured way, instruments focusing on different topics of everyday living appear to be useful. It is unclear which instruments exist for assessing preferences for everyday living. The aim of this planned review is to identify relevant instruments for assessing the preferences for everyday living of older people with various care needs in the form of an evidence map. Additionally, gaps requiring further research will be presented. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To identify the different instruments, we will conduct a systematic search in the electronic databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL and PsycINFO (via EBSCO). In addition, we will perform backward and forward citation tracking via reference lists and Google Scholar. The identified records will be independently screened (title/abstract and full text) by two reviewers. Data from the included studies will be extracted independently by the same two reviewers. In all three steps, the results will be checked for deviations, and if there are any deviations, they will be discussed. If no consensus can be achieved through discussion, a third reviewer will be engaged. All study designs will be included, and there will be no limitations regarding the publication status or time period. We will include all studies published in English and German that use instruments focusing on the assessment of preferences for everyday living in people older than 60 years of age with various care needs. For data charting, we will extract the number, categories and types of preferences, the care setting for which the instrument was developed and, if available, psychometric properties. Finally, the various extracted results will be presented in the form of tables and a bubble plot. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical concerns related to the construction of an evidence map, and ethical approval was given by the Witten/Herdecke University (application number 226/2020). We will discuss our results with practitioners in the field of nursing care and persons with various care needs. We will also make our results available to practitioners in an upcoming Project (PELI-D II) and to the public at (inter)national conferences and in the form of practice and peer-reviewed articles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.